DOCSLIB.ORG

Project Centre | Innovation Centre Medway

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Project Centre | Innovation Centre Medway For the best experience, open this PDF portfolio in Acrobat X or Adobe Reader X, or later. Get Adobe Reader Now! Risk assessment for Water Pipes (RA) The risk assessment will help you chose appropriate materials for your development. If you require any help completing this form please contact Developer Services on 0330 303 0119. Section 1: Development details Development Name Innovation Park, Medway Development Address Land adjacent to Rochester Airport, Maidstone Road, Chatham Kent ME5 9SD. Grid Ref: 164727, 574332 OS Grid Reference (mid point) Developers Name Medway Council Southern Water Reference number Please provide details below of the current and historical use of the site and adjacent sites. If your supporting information has details of the current and historical site use, please reference below the relevant sections of your report. Part of the site is currently occupied by Rochester Airport (with a grassed runway) and a car park for a BAE Systems unit. The western part of the site is used as storage facilities for caravans, and Area 2 (east) is a car park. The site has previously been part of an aeroplane factory and electrical engineering works. Refer to Chapter 6 of Land QQuality Statement report. Section 2: Preliminary risk assessment Has your desk study and site walkover identified any land potentially affected by contamination? Yes If the site is potentially affected by contamination but you have not completed any intrusive site investigation please provide details below of the rationale behind the intended pipe selection. If your supporting information has details of the rationale behind the intended pipe selection, please reference below the relevant sections of your report. Section 3: Intrusive site investigation Have you completed any intrusive site investigation? Yes Have you completed any non-intrusive site investigation? Yes Please provide date(s) when the site investigation(s) was taken Feb and March 2019 5 Contaminated land Assessment guidance Section 4: Site remediation Please provide details below of any site remediation (which may include a change in site levels) already completed. N/A Has the PSRAS (Table 1) been completed using appropriate data after remediation? Remediation will not imapct pipe type Please provide details below of any site remediation and an analysis of whether this will affect your intended pipe selection. N/A Section 5: Final use of site Please provide details below of any chemicals (including fuel) to be stored on site and any other future contamination risks which may affect your intended pipe selection. If your supporting information has details of potential contamination risks which may affect your intended pipe selection, please reference below the relevant sections of your report. The future site use is not anticipated to impact potable water pipe selection. No bulk fuel storage is proposed. What water pipe materials are intended to be Barrier Pipe used on site? _______________________ If your supporting information has additional information to support your intended pipe selection please reference below the relevant sections of your report. Based on the soil data from the SI, as presented in Chapter 9 of the Land Q uality Statement, the petroleum hydrocarbon concentrations exceed the PE and PVC thresholds and therefore Barrier Pipe will be required for new potable water pipes. Section 6: Risk Assessor Name of person directing the risk assessment Matthew Larkin for water pipes Lustre Consulting Limited, Suite 1, Second Floor Risk assessor's address North, The Fitted Rigging House, The Historic Dockyard, Chatham, Kent, ME4 4TZ Date risk assessment carried out 08/01/2021 Section 7: Declaration I confirm I have completed this form and provided supporting information in accordance with UKWIR Guidance for the Selection of Water Supply Pipes to be sued in Brownfield Sites. I also confirm that if any further relevant site investigation is needed and carried out, I will be required to submit an additional Risk Assessment for Water Pipes with the relevant supporting information. I understand the failure to supply any of the required information may delay my application being processed. Name Matthew Larkin Company Lustre Consulting Limited BSc MSc MCIWEM C.WEM Contact CSci RSoBRA Date 08/01/2021 Number 01634 75770 Signature Email Address [email protected] 6 Contaminated land Assessment guidance Pipe selection risk assessment summary Testing must be undertaken on the materials in which the pipes are to be laid – whether existing ground materials, remediated materials or imported capping materials. Please use the appropriate testing data to complete the table below. Please note, if more than one pipe selection is being made, a completed Pipe Selection risk assessment summary is required for each selection. What materials have been tested to populate the table below? Existing ground materials Test group Testing PE Metal Laboratory Testing UKAS Maximum Maximum site Locations and depths where required? threshold Pipes/ Detection accredited Y/N concentration at concentration (see concentrations exceed Barrier Pass/ Fail? proposed pipeline note 3) proposed pipeline threshold Pipe depth (see note 2) Total VOC's 0.5 Pass NOT TESTED, TESTING OF DETERMINAND NOT REQU. Total BTEX & MTBE 0.1 Pass NOT TESTED, TESTING OF DETERMINAND NOT REQU. Where Total SVOCs (excluding PAHs Preliminary 2 Pass NOT TESTED, TESTING OF DETERMINAND NOT REQU. and those substances marked Risk with * Assessment EC5-EC10 aliphatic and aromatic (PRA) has 2 Pass hydrocarbons < LOD Y < LOD < LOD identified land EC10-EC16 aliphatic and potentially TP116, TP117, TP1288, 10 FAIL 350mg/kg 350mg/kg aromatic hydrocarbons affected by Y TP127, TP129, TP131, TP132, TP107, SA3, SA4 EC16-EC40 aliphatic and contamination 500 2,442mg/kg 2,442mg/kg and BH102. Depths from 0.1 aromatic hydrocarbons FAIL Y to 0.5m bgl. Phenols* (from SVOC analysis) 2 Pass > LOD Y Ethers* 0.5 Pass NOT TESTED, TESTING OF DETERMINAND NOT REQU. Nitrobenzene* 0.5 Pass NOT TESTED, TESTING OF DETERMINAND NOT REQU. Only where Ketones* 0.5 Pass NOT TESTED, TESTING OF DETERMINAND NOT REQU. identified Aldehydes* 0.5 Pass NOT TESTED, TESTING OF DETERMINAND NOT REQU. NOT TESTED, TESTING OF DETERMINAND NOT REQU. Amines Fail Pass Conductivity, (See Corrosive Pass Redox and note 1) NOT TESTED, TESTING OF DETERMINAND NOT REQU. pH Note 1 - Threshold: For wrapped steel, corrosive if pH<7 and conductivity >400µS/cm. For wrapped ductile iron corrosive if pH<5, Eh not neutral and conductivity>400µS/cm. For copper, corrosive if pH>5 or >8 and Eh positive. Note 2 - Water pipes are normally laid at 0.75-1.35m below finished ground level. Confirm pipes at level if no barrier pipe is needed. Note 3 - Also state if liquid free product is present in soil or groundwater 7 Contaminated Land Assesment Guide Developer Services STAGE 2 DETAILED UXO RISK ASSESSMENT Report Reference: DRA-19-1123 INTEGRITY • PROFESSIONALISM • KNOWLEDGE Project Centre | Innovation Centre Medway STAGE 2 DETAILED UXO RISK ASSESSMENT: Innovation Centre Medway Prepared For: Project Centre Brimstone Site Investigation 1-3 Manor Road Chatham Kent ME4 6AE Phone: 0207 117 2492 Web: www.brimstoneuxo.com REPORT REF: DRA-19-1123 | Revision: 0 Prepared by: O. Brown 16/08/2019 Reviewed by: C.Bull 16/08/2019 Release Authorised by: A. Florence 17/08/2019 Report Issue Date: 19/08/2019 This report has been prepared in line with the specific requirement of the client’s contract or commission. It should not be used by any third party without the written permission of the UXO specialist. In preparation for this report the UXO specialist has obtained information from external, third party sources. The UXO specialist cannot be accountable for the accuracy of such data but where possible will endeavour in insure that only credible sources are accessed. This report has been prepared with consideration to the site conditions at the time of report order confirmation. The UXO specialist cannot accept liability for any subsequent changes to the conditions on site which may have an effect on the UXO risk. The report has been prepared in line with the relevant CIRIA guidance and UK legislation current at the time of report order confirmation. Changes to official guidance, legislation or technical risk assessment improvements could render parts of this assessment obsolete. The report should not be relied upon in the event of any such changes. If this report is to be used at a time in excess of two years after its issue date it is recommended that Brimstone Site Investigation be contacted to carry out a review of the report. The copyright for this report remains with the UXO specialist. No part of this report may be reproduced, published or amended without written consent from the UXO specialist. Project Centre | Innovation Centre Medway EXECUTIVE SUMMARY RESULT: Brimstone Site Investigation concludes that UXO poses a LOW RISK, LOW-MODERATE RISK, MODERATE RISK and HIGH RISK to the proposed works. THE SITE: The Site (centred on National Grid Ref: TQ 74484 64452) is located approximately 2.8km south of Chatham town centre, in the Medway area of north Kent. It is bound to the east by Roman Road / Maidstone Road (A229), to the west by Rochester Road (B2097), to the north by Marconi Way, and to the south by a small residential estate fronting Maidstone Road. The Site boundary encompasses Rochester Airport and is mainly occupied by the grass landing field area, comprising two intersection grass runways. In the north, a large carpark and two large commercial buildings are situated between the runways and a small triangle of hardstanding with a narrow road provides access to this area from Roman Road. The southern section of The Site comprises aircraft hangars with smaller ancillary airport structures and a hard-surfaced apron. A caravan storage site it situated at the very southern extent with a former building footprint and the existing Innovation Centre building (with its carpark) to the east.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Detailed Unexploded Ordnance (UXO) Risk Assessment
    Detailed Unexploded Ordnance (UXO) Risk Assessment Project Name Aerodrome Road, Hawkinge Client Enzygo Site Address Hawkinge, Folkestone CT18 7AG Report Reference DA5936-00 th Date 6 March 2018 Originator JM Find us on Twitter and Facebook st 1 Line Defence Limited Company No: 7717863 VAT No: 128 8833 79 Unit 3, Maple Park, Essex Road, Hoddesdon, Herts. EN11 0EX www.1stlinedefence.co.uk Tel: +44 (0)1992 245 020 [email protected] Detailed Unexploded Ordnance Risk Assessment Aerodrome Road, Hawkinge Enzygo Executive Summary Site Location The site is located in Hawkinge, Kent. Aerodrome Road borders the site to the north, while Elvington Lane forms the eastern boundary. Areas of open ground border to the south and west. The boundary comprises areas of open ground and the foundations of previously demolished structures. The site is approximately centred on the OS grid reference: TR 2044639485. Proposed Works The proposed works are understood to involve the excavation of trial pits to a depth of up to 3m. Boreholes will also be drilled to a depth of 4m-6m below ground level depending on ground conditions. Geology and Bomb Penetration Depth The British Geological Survey (BGS) map shows the bedrock geology of the site to be underlain by the Pit Chalk Formation – chalk and sedimentary bedrock of the Cretaceous Period. The superficial deposits are comprised of Clay-with-flints Formation - clay, silt, sand and gravel of the Quaternary Period. Site specific geotechnical information was not available to 1st Line Defence at the time of the production of this report. An assessment of maximum bomb penetration depth can be made once such data becomes available, or by a UXO specialist during on-site support.
    [Show full text]
  • Detailed Unexploded Ordnance (UXO)
    Detailed Unexploded Ordnance (UXO) Threat Assessment Project Name Young’s Builders Merchant Client Cassidy Group Site Address Common Lane, Corley, Coventry, Warwickshire, CV7 8AQ Report Reference 2846PS00 Revision 00 Date 18th November 2015 Originator PS Find us on Twitter and Facebook st 1 Line Defence Limited Company No: 7717863 VAT No: 128 8833 79 Unit 3, Maple Park, Essex Road, Hoddesdon, Herts. EN11 0EX www.1stlinedefence.co.uk Tel: +44 (0)1992 245 020 [email protected] Detailed Unexploded Ordnance Threat Assessment Young’s Builders Merchant Cassidy Group Executive Summary Site Location The site is situated in Corley, within the district of Coventry, Warwickshire, approximately 7.3km north-west of the city centre. The site is surrounded in all directions by agricultural fields and residential properties and small vegetated areas. The proposed site is an irregular shaped parcel of land. Half of the site consists of several small structures associated with the builders’ yard and large piles of building materials. The other half of the site appears to be an area of open land. The site is centred on the approximate OS grid reference: SP 2855285310 Proposed Works The proposed works include further investigations to assess the level of contamination on the site and the removal of all building materials and hard-standings. The entirety of the site will then be remediated and returned to pastoral/arable land or residential development. Geology and Bomb Penetration Depth Site specific geological data / borehole information is not available at the site at the time of writing this report so maximum bomb penetration depth cannot be calculated.
    [Show full text]
  • Cluster Weapons – Military Utility and Alternatives
    FFI-rapport/2007/02345 Cluster weapons – military utility and alternatives Ove Dullum Forsvarets forskningsinstitutt/Norwegian Defence Research Establishment (FFI) 1 February 2008 FFI-rapport 2007/02345 Oppdrag 351301 ISBN 978-82-464-1318-1 Keywords Militære operasjoner / Military operations Artilleri / Artillery Flybomber / Aircraft bombs Klasevåpen / Cluster weapons Ammunisjon / Ammunition Approved by Ove Dullum Project manager Jan Ivar Botnan Director of Research Jan Ivar Botnan Director 2 FFI-rapport/2007/02345 English summary This report is made through the sponsorship of the Royal Norwegian Ministry of Foreign Affairs. Its purpose is to get an overview of the military utility of cluster munitions, and to find to which degree their capacity can be substituted by current conventional weapons or weapons that are on the verge of becoming available. Cluster munition roughly serve three purposes; firstly to defeat soft targets, i e personnel; secondly to defeat armoured of light armoured vehicles; and thirdly to contribute to the suppressive effect, i e to avoid enemy forces to use their weapons without inflicting too much damage upon them. The report seeks to quantify the effect of such munitions and to compare this effect with that of conventional weapons and more modern weapons. The report discusses in some detail how such weapons work and which effect they have against different targets. The fragment effect is the most important one. Other effects are the armour piercing effect, the blast effect, and the incendiary effect. Quantitative descriptions of such effects are usually only found in classified literature. However, this report is exclusively based on unclassified sources. The availability of such sources has been sufficient to get an adequate picture of the effect of such weapons.
    [Show full text]
  • Nightfighter Scenario Book
    NIGHTFIGHTER 1 NIGHTFIGHTER Air Warfare in the Night Skies of World War Two SCENARIO BOOK Design by Lee Brimmicombe-Wood © 2011 GMT Games, LLC P.O. Box 1308, Hanford, CA 93232-1308, USA www.GMTGames.com © GMTGMT Games 1109 LLC, 2011 2 NIGHTFIGHTER CONTENTS SCENARIO 1: Cat’S EYE How to use this book 2 Background. September 1940. Early nightfighting relied on single-seat day fighters cruising the skies in the hope that they SCENARIO 1: Cat’S EYE 2 might find the enemy. Pilots needed “cat’s eyes” to pick out Scenario 1 Variant 2 bombers in the dark. In practice the technique resulted in SCENARIO 2: DUNAJA 3 few kills and more defending aircraft were lost due to night- flying accidents than enemy aircraft were shot down. Scenario 2 Variants 3 This scenario depicts a typical “cat’s eye” patrol during the SCENARIO 3: THE KAMMHUBER LINE 4 German Blitz on Britain. A lone Hurricane fighter is flying Scenario 3 Variants 4 over southern England on a moonlit night. SCENARIO 4: HIMMELBETT 5 Difficulty Level. Impossible. Game Length. The game ends when all bombers have exited Scenario 4 Variants 5 the map, or a bomber is shot down. SCENARIO 5: WILDE SAU 7 Sequence of Play. Ignore the Flak Phase, Radar Search Phase, Scenario 5 Variants 7 AI Search Phase and Searchlight Phase. SCENARIO 6: ZAHME SAU 8 Attacker Forces. (German) Scenario 6 Variants 8 Elements of KG 100, Luftwaffe. The attacker has three He111H bombers. SCENARIO 7: Serrate 11 Attacker Entry. One bomber enters on Turn 1, another on Scenario 7 Variants 11 Turn 5 and a final one on Turn 10.
    [Show full text]
  • Recent Military Heritage: a Review of Progress 1994-2004
    RECENT MILITARY HERITAGE: A REVIEW OF PROGRESS 1994-2004 A report for Research and Strategy Summary This short report outlines English Heritage’s work on recent military heritage, 1994-2004, focussing on: 1 Commissioned work 2 Internal projects/programmes 3 Advice and influence 4 Management and protection 5 Research agenda 6 European and wider contacts 7 Outreach Much of the commissioned work (s1, below) was undertaken in the period 1994-1999, prior to the creation of English Heritage’s Military and Naval Strategy Group (MNSG) in 1999, and a policy head for military and naval heritage in 2001. Much of what is described in s2-7 (below) was undertaken through the influence and activities of MNSG. A series of annexes provide further details of commissioned work, in-house surveys, publications, conferences and MNSG membership. Review, 1994-2004 1 Commissioned work (Annex 1) Much original research has been commissioned by English Heritage since 1994, largely through its Thematic Listing and Monuments Protection Programmes. This has created a fuller understanding of twentieth century defence heritage than existed previously. For some subjects it contributed to, clarified or expanded upon previous studies (eg. Anti-invasion defences); for others the research was entirely new (eg. Bombing decoys of WWII). Commissioned projects have included: archive-based studies of most major classes of WWII monuments; aerial photographic studies documenting which sites survive; a study of post-medieval fortifications resulting in a set of seven Monument Class Descriptions; studies of aviation and naval heritage, barracks, ordnance yards and a scoping study of drill halls; and characterisation studies of specific key sites (RAF Scampton and the Royal Dockyards at Devonport and Portsmouth).
    [Show full text]
  • Shaef-Sgs-Records.Pdf
    363.6 DWIGHT D. EISENHOWER LIBRARY ABILENE, KANSAS SUPREME HEADQUARTERS, ALLIED EXPEDITIONARY FORCE, OFFICE OF SECRETARY, GENERAL STAFF: Records, 1943-45 [microfilm] Accession 71-14 Processed by: DJH Date completed: June 1991 The microfilm of the records of the Secretary of the General Staff, Supreme Headquarters, Allied Expeditionary Force, was sent to the Eisenhower Library by the Modern Military Records Division of the National Archives in September 1969. Linear feet of shelf space occupied: 4 Number of reels of microfilm: 62 Literary rights in the SHAEF records are in the public domain. These records were processed in accordance with the general restrictions on access to government records as set forth by the National Archives. SCOPE AND CONTENT NOTE The Supreme Headquarters, Allied Expeditionary Force (SHAEF) was a joint U.S. - British military organization created in England in February 1944 to carry out the invasion of Western Europe. Dwight D. Eisenhower, an officer of the United States Army, was appointed Supreme Allied Commander. Eisenhower organized his staff along U.S. military lines with separate staff sections devoted to personnel (G-1), intelligence (G-2), operations (G-3), logistics (G-4) and civilian affairs (G-5). The most significant files at SHAEF were kept in the Office of the Secretary of the General Staff (SGS). The SGS office served as a type of central file for SHAEF. The highest-level documents that received the personal attention of the Supreme Allied Commander and the Chief of Staff usually ended up in the SGS files. Many of the staff sections and administrative offices at SHAEF retired material to the SGS files.
    [Show full text]
  • Detailed Unexploded Ordnance (UXO) Risk Assessment
    GREENLINK MARINE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT REPORT- IRELAND APPENDIX J Marine Detailed UXO Risk Assessment P1975_R4500_RevF1 July 2019 Greenlink Interconnector - connecting the power markets in Ireland and Great Britain For more information: W: www.greenlink.ie “The sole responsibility of this publication lies with the author. The European Union is not responsible for any use that may be made of the information contained therein.” Detailed Unexploded Ordnance (UXO) Risk Assessment Project Name Greenlink Client Intertek Site Address Pembrokeshire, Wales to County Wexford, Ireland Report Reference DA2985-01 Date 15th April 2019 Originator MN Find us on Twitter and Facebook st 1 Line Defence Limited Company No: 7717863 VAT No: 128 8833 79 Unit 3, Maple Park, Essex Road, Hoddesdon, Herts. EN11 0EX www.1stlinedefence.co.uk Tel: +44 (0)1992 245 020 [email protected] Detailed Unexploded Ordnance Risk Assessment Greenlink Cable Route Intertek Executive Summary Description and Location of Study Area The Greenlink project is a proposed subsea and underground cable interconnector, with associated convertor stations, between existing electricity grids in Wales and Ireland. The project is designed to provide significant additional energy interconnection between Ireland, the UK and continental Europe with the aim of delivering increased security of supply, fuel diversity and greater competition. It is also designed to provide additional transmission network capacities, reinforcing the existing electricity grids in south-east Ireland and south Wales. The study area is approximately 160km in length and spans the St George’s Channel, including areas of landfall in Ireland and Wales. Its westernmost section intercepts the Hook Peninsula in County Wexford and the easternmost section incorporates an area of land surrounding Freshwater West Beach in Pembrokeshire.
    [Show full text]
  • EIAR TA 13.2 – UXO Study
    Appendix 13.2 Issue Date Revision Details 1219991A 23/02/2021 Released UXO Study EIAR Technical Appendix A13.2-1 A13.2: UXO Study Detailed Unexploded Ordnance (UXO) Risk Assessment Project Name Daer Reservoir, Biggar Client Natural Power Site Address Daer Reservoir, Biggar, Scotland, ML12 6TJ Report Reference DA10468-00 Date 28th February 2020 Originator HOS Find us on Twitter and Facebook st 1 Line Defence Limited Company No: 7717863 VAT No: 128 8833 79 Unit 3, Maple Park, Essex Road, Hoddesdon, Herts. EN11 0EX www.1stlinedefence.co.uk Tel: +44 (0)1992 245 020 [email protected] Detailed Unexploded Ordnance Risk Assessment Daer Reservoir, Biggar Natural Power Executive Summary Site Location and Description Comprising some 4,500 ha2 of moorland, hills and forest, the site is located partly within the council of South Lanarkshire and partly within the council of Dumfries and Galloway. The site is bound by hills and moorland surrounding the hamlet of Wintercleugh to the north, whilst forest, the A74 and the towns of Moffat and Beattock bind the site to the east. The site is bound by Harestanes Windfarm and the forest of Ae to the south, whilst moorland, forest and Daer Reservoir bind the site to the west. The centre point of the site is approximately located on the OS grid reference: NS 9942904371. Site location maps are presented in Annex A, whilst a recent aerial photograph and site plan are presented in Annex B and Annex C respectively. Proposed Works The exact scope and nature of proposed works was not available at the time of writing this report.
    [Show full text]
  • Explosive Ordnance Threat Assessment for Future Works
    Explosive Ordnance Threat Assessment for Future Works Site: MoD Beach & Park Garrison Site, Shoeburyness Client: Southend-on-Sea Borough Council Ref: 6180TA Rev-3 Date: 27th November 2015 Dynasafe BACTEC Limited Make the world a safer place 9, Waterside Court, Galleon Boulevard, Crossways Business Park, Dartford, Kent, DA2 6NX, UK Office: +44 (0) 1322 284 550 www.bactec.com www.dynasafe.com Southend-on-Sea Borough Council Explosive Ordnance Desktop Threat Assessment for Future Works This document was written by, belongs to and is copyright to Dynasafe BACTEC Limited. It contains valuable Dynasafe BACTEC Limited proprietary and confidential information which is disclosed only for the purposes of the client’s assessment and evaluation of the project which is the subject of this report. The contents of this document shall not, in whole or in part (i) be used for any other purposes except such assessment and evaluation of the project; (ii) be relied upon in any way by the person other than the client (iii) be disclosed to any member of the client’s organisation who is not required to know such information nor to any third party individual, organisation or government, or (iv) be copied or stored in any retrieval system nor otherwise be reproduced or transmitted in any form by photocopying or any optical, electronic, mechanical or other means, without prior written consent of the Managing Director, Dynasafe BACTEC Limited, 9 Waterside Court, Galleon Boulevard, Crossways Business Park, Dartford, Kent, DA2 6NX, United Kingdom to whom all requests should be sent. Accordingly, no responsibility or liability is accepted by Dynasafe BACTEC towards any other person in respect of the use of this document or reliance on the information contained within it, except as may be designated by law for any matter outside the scope of this document.
    [Show full text]
  • Detailed Uxo Risk Assessment Document Ref: 6.2 15.E
    PLANNING ACT 2008 INFRASTRUCTURE PLANNING (APPLICATIONS: PRESCRIBED FORMS AND PROCEDURE) REGULATIONS 2009 REGULATION 5 (2) (a) PROPOSED PORT TERMINAL AT FORMER TILBURY POWER STATION TILBURY2 TR030003 VOLUME 6 PART B ES APPENDIX 15.E: DETAILED UXO RISK ASSESSMENT DOCUMENT REF: 6.2 15.E Detailed Unexploded Ordnance (UXO) Risk Assessment Project Name Port of Tilbury Client Port of Tilbury London Limited Site Address Tilbury, Essex Report Reference DA3222-01 Revision 00 Date 4th May 2016 Originator SM Find us on Twitter and Facebook st 1 Line Defence Limited Company No: 7717863 VAT No: 128 8833 79 Unit 3, Maple Park, Essex Road, Hoddesdon, Herts. EN11 0EX www.1stlinedefence.co.uk Tel: +44 (0)1992 245 020 [email protected] Detailed Unexploded Ordnance Risk Assessment Port of Tilbury Port of Tilbury London Limited Executive Summary Site Location The site is situated in the town of Tilbury within the borough of Thurrock, Essex, Eastern England. The northern border of the site is lined with a railway line, which separates it from the residential parts of Tilbury, present to the north-west. Areas to the north-east largely consist of open fields, while Tilbury Power Station and associated infrastructure is located immediately east of the site. The River Thames runs to the south of the site, while further industrial infrastructure as well as Tilbury Fort and a large commercial area is present on the landmass outside of site boundaries to the south-west. The premises of Tilbury Docks is located to the west of the site. The site is situated on the approximate OS grid references: TQ 6592976795 (at its north-eastern point), TQ 6625675230 (at its south-eastern point), and TQ 6404175923 (at its western point).
    [Show full text]
  • UXO Risk Map
    M25 junction 28 improvement scheme TR010029 6.3 Environmental Statement Appendix 10.5: UXO risk map APFP Regulation 5(2)(a) Planning Act 2008 Infrastructure Planning (Applications: Prescribed Forms and Procedure) Regulations 2009 10.1.1 Volume 6 May 2020 M25 junction 28 improvement scheme TR010029 6.3 Environmental Statement Appendix 10.5: UXO risk map Infrastructure Planning Planning Act 2008 The Infrastructure Planning (Applications: Prescribed Forms and Procedure) Regulations 2009 M25 junction 28 scheme Development Consent Order 202[x ] 6.3 ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT APPENDIX 10.5: UXO RISK MAP Regulation Number: Regulation 5(2)(a) Planning Inspectorate Scheme TR010029 Reference: Application Document Reference: TR010029/APP/6.3 Author: M25 junction 28 improvement scheme project team, Highways England Version Date Status of Version 1 May 2020 Application issue Planning Inspectorate scheme reference: TR010029 Application document reference: TR010029/APP/6.3 Page 2 of 70 M25 junction 28 improvement scheme TR010029 6.3 Environmental Statement Appendix 10.5: UXO risk map Table of contents Chapter Pages 10. UXO risk map 5 Planning Inspectorate scheme reference: TR010029 Application document reference: TR010029/APP/6.3 Page 3 of 70 Appendix 10.5 UXO risk map M25 junction 28 improvement scheme TR010029 6.3 Environmental Statement Appendix 10.5: UXO risk map 11. UXO risk map Planning Inspectorate scheme reference: TR010029 Application document reference: TR010029/APP/6.3 Page 5 of 70 STAGE 2 DETAILED UXO RISK ASSESSMENT Report Reference: DRA-19-1096 INTEGRITY • PROFESSIONALISM • KNOWLEDGE Geotechnical Engineering Ltd | M25 Junction 28, Romford EXECUTIVE SUMMARY RESULT: Brimstone Site Investigation concludes that UXO poses a LOW-MODERATE RISK to the proposed works.
    [Show full text]
  • 1St Edition I ABOUT THIS HANDBOOK
    1st Edition i ABOUT THIS HANDBOOK The focus of this handbook is effective utilization of the German and Russian Ground Attack aircraft available within the online multiplayer servers of the IL-2: Great Battles Series. This handbook presupposes proficiency in basic operation of the Ground Attack aircraft described herein, to include taxi, takeoff, landing, engine operation, bombing, gunnery, and navigation. As such, it does not cover basic operational procedures. While the topics covered are applicable to any multiplayer server, the handbook does maintain a predilection toward the challenges faced in expert server environments. Ground Attack is a rather broad topic, and there are as many possible methodologies and approaches as there are players. This handbook is not intended to be the final word on the matter, but rather one player’s perspective gained through a great deal of online play. Readers may adopt or disregard the many recommendations contained in this manual through comparison with their personal experiences. This handbook is very detailed in both situational analysis and recommended approaches. Some players may find the page-after-page of minutiae a bit overwhelming, or feel that such a detailed approach is unrealistic or overkill for online play. The amount of effort one is willing to put forth in pursuit of a reward, and naturally the perception of that reward’s value will vary from one person to another. That is to say, the line between what is perceived to be “fun” versus “work” will shift depending on the individual. I can only communicate that writing out explanations of the concepts contained herein was exponentially more difficult than knowing the concepts and implementing them during online play.
    [Show full text]